United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-2037

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:12-cv-00100-JRG, 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

Decided: April 14, 2017

______________________ 

DEVAN V. PADMANABHAN, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., 

Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by PAUL J. ROBBENNOLT; HENRY CHARLES 

BUNSOW, BRIAN A. E. SMITH, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & 

Allison LLP, San Francisco, CA; DENISE MARIE DE MORY,

CRAIG Y. ALLISON, Redwood City, CA. 

JOSEPH J. MUELLER, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & 

Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by CYNTHIA D. VREELAND, RICHARD W.

O'NEILL, MICHAEL WOLIN. 

______________________ 
2 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from a patent infringement action 

brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l., is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,143 (“the 

’143 patent”). Claim 17 of the patent, the only claim at 

issue in this appeal, recites a mobile station, such as a 

mobile telephone, that is connected to a cellular system or 

network. The claim is directed to means for sending 

packet data from the mobile station to the network using 

a selected channel.

Following trial, the jury found that the defendant, 

Apple Inc., did not infringe any of the asserted claims. 

The district court denied Core Wireless’s motion for 

judgment as a matter of law, and Core Wireless took this 

appeal. We affirm.

I 

Mobile stations such as cellular telephones can 

transmit data packets to a cellular network (known as an 

uplink) in one of two ways—either by using a shared 

“common channel,” which carries transmissions from 

multiple mobile stations, or by using a “dedicated channel,” which carries transmissions from a single mobile 

station without competing transmissions from other 

mobile stations. Dedicated channels are valuable because 

they permit faster and more reliable transmissions than 

common channels. But dedicated channels are at a premium, as there are not enough dedicated channels to 

carry all cellular transmissions. The industry has therefore worked to solve the problem of how to allocate dedicated channels (when the need for a dedicated channel is 

greatest). 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 3

One aspect of this problem is whether the network or 

the mobile station should select the channel for the uplink. The network initially has no information about the 

data packet to be sent, such as data packet size, and 

therefore does not have the necessary information to 

make a channel selection decision. In the prior art, the 

mobile station would send the network information about 

the data packet to be sent so that the network could make 

the channel selection decision. As noted in the ’143 

patent, selection by the network wastes valuable system 

resources, because it requires the mobile station to send a 

message to the network regarding the data packet the 

mobile station wants to transmit, and then requires the 

network to make the channel selection decision. See ’143 

patent, col. 3, ll. 41-49.

The solution provided by the ’143 patent is to have the 

mobile station, not the network, make the uplink channel 

selection decision. The way that is done is for the network to provide the mobile station with certain parameters that the mobile station is directed to apply in 

determining whether to use a dedicated channel or a 

common channel. See ’143 patent, col. 3, ll. 53-56; id., col. 

4, ll. 37-58. According to the patent, the described method 

reduces “the signaling load associated with the allocation 

of packet data transfer” and reduces “the delay associated 

with the starting of data transfer.” Id., col. 3, ll. 64-67. 

Because the mobile station makes the channel selection 

decision, it does not use up traffic capacity by sending the 

message about the data packet to the network so that the 

network may select a channel. Id., col. 3, ll. 40-49. 

Although Core Wireless initially asserted a number of 

claims from several different patents against Apple, this 

appeal involves only a single claim—claim 17 of the ’143 

patent. That claim reads as follows:

A mobile station connected with a cellular system, comprising means for sending uplink packet 
4 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

data to the system using a selected channel, 

wherein the selected channel is either a common 

channel (RACH) or dedicated channel (DCH), 

characterized in that it also comprises: 

means for receiving a threshold value of 

the channel selection parameter from the 

system,

means for storing said threshold value of 

the channel selection parameter, and

means for comparing said threshold value 

of the channel selection parameter to a 

current value of the channel selection parameter for basis of said channel selection. 

A magistrate judge conducted the claim construction 

proceedings and construed the “means for comparing” 

limitation of claim 17 to have the function of “comparing 

said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to 

a current value of the channel selection parameter for 

basis of said channel selection.”

The magistrate judge construed the corresponding 

structure for performing that function to be 

[a] control unit 803 [in the mobile station] wherein 

the control unit 803 is programmed to control the 

comparison of the threshold value of the channel 

selection parameter to the current value of the 

channel selection parameter in accordance with 

the algorithm shown in Fig. 6, step 650, and described in 6:20-39; 7:17-20; and 7:24-28 of the ’143 

specification; and statutory equivalents thereof.

At trial, Apple introduced evidence that Apple’s accused mobile stations lack the capability to select between 

common and dedicated channels for packet data transfer. 

Instead, in systems in which Apple’s devices are used, 

Apple’s evidence showed that the network, not the mobile 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 5

station, is responsible for selecting which channel to use 

for uplink transmissions. At the conclusion of the trial, 

the jury found that Apple did not infringe claim 17 of the 

’143 patent. 

In its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of 

law (“JMOL”), Core Wireless argued that Apple had 

misapplied the court’s construction of claim 17 when it 

interpreted the court’s construction to mean that the 

“means for comparing” limitation requires the mobile 

station to be capable of making uplink channel decisions. 

The district court disagreed, holding that the claim requires that the mobile station “must have the capability 

to perform ‘channel selection,’ even if that capability was 

not used during the actual alleged performance of the 

claimed method.” The court concluded that there was 

sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could 

find noninfringement based on that claim construction. 

II

Core Wireless does not object to the claim construction that was given to the jury, which was the same as the 

claim construction adopted by the magistrate judge. 

Instead, Core Wireless argues both that the district court 

misapplied the magistrate judge’s pretrial claim construction, and that the claim construction adopted by the 

district court was erroneous. 

A 

Core Wireless’s first argument is that Apple took a 

position at trial that was contrary to the magistrate 

judge’s claim construction, and that the district court 

improperly upheld the jury’s verdict in favor of Apple by 

in effect altering the magistrate judge’s claim construction. 

Core Wireless explains its view of the difference between the magistrate judge’s pretrial claim construction

and Apple’s construction as follows: Under the magis-
6 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

trate judge’s claim construction, as Core Wireless interprets it, an infringing device need only be capable of 

performing the functions of receiving a threshold parameter from the cellular network, storing that threshold 

parameter in local memory, and then comparing a current 

value of that parameter to the threshold. Under Apple’s 

construction, in order to infringe, a mobile station must 

also be able to make a channel selection decision based on 

that comparison, rather than leaving the channel selection decision to the network. That is, Core Wireless 

contends that under the magistrate judge’s claim construction the mobile station need do no more than make a 

comparison, while Apple contends that the mobile station 

must have the capability to select a dedicated channel 

when the relevant threshold conditions are met.

The problem with Core Wireless’s argument is that 

the premise is incorrect: The magistrate judge did not 

clearly reject Apple’s position and adopt Core Wireless’s 

position. Core Wireless bases its argument on the magistrate judge’s failure to include certain language, proposed 

by Apple, in the description of the corresponding structure 

for performing the “means for comparing” limitation. As 

Core Wireless points out, the magistrate judge did not 

include Apple’s suggested language that control unit 803 

“provide[s] the comparison result to a channel selection 

function within the mobile station” and Apple’s reference 

to step 660 of Figure 6 in the patent. Those exclusions, 

Core Wireless contends, indicate that the magistrate 

judge rejected Apple’s position on the construction of that 

limitation. 

We disagree. The magistrate judge did not state at 

the hearing or include in his order any explanation for 

omitting Apple’s proposed text from the claim construction. Instead, he focused primarily on whether control 

unit 803 was a general purpose processor within the 

meaning of WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game 

Technology, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Significantly, 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 7

the magistrate judge included in his construction references to Figure 6, step 650, and to column 7, lines 17-20, 

of the ’143 patent. As discussed below in further detail, 

both of those references indicate that channel selection 

can be performed by the mobile station, consistent with 

the district court’s discussion of the claim construction 

issue in its JMOL order. 

Core Wireless did not raise the issue of Apple’s allegedly improper interpretation of the magistrate judge’s

claim construction during trial, when it had the opportunity to do so. Core Wireless contends that Apple improperly offered evidence and argument to the jury that 

Core Wireless was required to prove that Apple’s accused 

devices had the capability to make channel selection 

decisions. In fact, Core Wireless states that Apple’s 

noninfringement position at trial was based exclusively on 

that theory. But Core Wireless did not object to Apple’s 

evidence on that ground, nor did it object to Apple’s 

argument to the jury as contrary to the proper claim 

construction. Moreover, although Core Wireless contends 

that the magistrate judge’s pretrial claim construction did 

not require a showing that the mobile station was capable 

of making channel selection decisions, Core Wireless did 

not seek a clarification of the claim construction on that 

ground either during the trial or before the jury was 

instructed.

Based on Core Wireless’s failure to seek clarification 

of the pretrial claim construction, Apple argues that Core 

Wireless has waived its claim construction argument. 

Citing Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 

1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Core Wireless responds that 

it made its position known by moving for judgment of 

infringement as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

50(a) at the close of the evidence, and thereby preserved 

its claim construction argument for review.
8 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

We find it unnecessary to decide whether Core Wireless waived its claim construction argument by failing to 

seek clarification of the pretrial claim construction at 

trial. That is because we do not agree that the magistrate 

judge adopted Core Wireless’s position on claim construction and because, for the reasons discussed below, Core 

Wireless’s claim construction argument is erroneous on 

the merits.

B 

Core Wireless argues that the district court erred in 

its JMOL order, where it explicitly construed the “means 

for comparing” limitation of claim 17 of the ’143 patent to 

require that the mobile station have the capability to 

make channel selections. We conclude that the district 

court was correct, as it stated in its JMOL order, that 

claim 17 of the ’143 patent requires a showing that the 

accused mobile stations were capable of making channel 

selection decisions. 

The invention disclosed in the ’143 patent is a system 

in which the mobile station gathers and analyzes appropriate information and makes a channel selection decision. The basic architecture of the system depicted in the 

’143 specification is depicted in Figure 6 of the patent. 

The patent characterizes Figure 6, which is set forth 

below, as “a flow chart of a method according to the invention for transferring packet data in the uplink direction.” 

’143 patent, col. 5, ll. 58-59. 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 9

Figure 6 shows that “threshold values are determined 

for the channel selection parameters and stored in the 

mobile station’s memory,” as depicted at step 620. ’143 

patent, col. 5, ll. 60-62. At step 630, the base station 

sends to the mobile station “one or more of said channel 

selection parameters,” i.e., the factors on which the channel selection is based. Id., col. 6, ll. 1-9. Once the mobile 

station receives a request to send a data packet, as de-
10 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

picted at step 640, “the (RLC/)MAC layer [of the mobile 

station] either makes an autonomous decision on the use 

of a common channel vs. dedicated channel on the basis of 

parameters received from the system or requests the RRC 

layer [of the mobile station] to determine the appropriate 

channel type.” Id., col. 6, ll. 14-19. The description of 

Figure 6 set forth in the specification thus makes clear 

that the channel selection process occurs in the mobile 

station and is not made by the network, although if the 

mobile station selects a dedicated channel, the mobile 

station may need to then request that the network allocate the dedicated channel (step 680) before the mobile 

station can actually transmit on that channel. See id., col. 

3, ll. 10-30.

Core Wireless’s position is that Figure 6, as well as 

other portions of the specification that describe the process by which the mobile station makes the channel 

selection decision, all simply describe preferred embodiments of the invention. According to Core Wireless, claim 

17 recites a different process in which the mobile station 

is not required to perform the channel selection. The 

problem with Core Wireless’s theory is that the entire 

point of the invention is to enable the mobile station to 

make the channel selection decision in order to minimize 

traffic between the mobile station and the network. 

 Claim 17 is a means-plus-function claim and thus is 

controlled by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 (now codified as section 

112(f) under the America Invents Act, which does not 

apply to this case). As such, claim 17 covers any device 

that performs the function recited in the claim with 

structure described in the specification or its equivalents. 

Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 

934 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc). 

The function recited in claim 17 is “comparing said 

threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a 

current value of the channel selection parameter for basis 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 11

of said channel selection.” ’143 patent, col. 9, ll. 14-16. 

The structure that performs that function is the structure 

described in Figure 6 and the accompanying text, as well 

as elsewhere in the specification. 

As stated in the magistrate judge’s claim construction, 

adopted by the district court, the recited structure includes the algorithm shown in Figure 6 and described in 

the specification, and in particular in column 6, lines 20-

39, and column 7, lines 17-20 and 24-28. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999) (“In a means-plus-function claim in which the 

disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, 

programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed 

structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather 

the special purpose computer programmed to perform the 

disclosed algorithm.”); see also Ergo Licensing, LLC v. 

CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(“Requiring disclosure of an algorithm properly defines 

the scope of the claim and prevents pure functional claiming.”). The recited portions of the specification describe 

an algorithm in which the threshold value for the channel 

selection parameter is provided to the mobile station, the 

mobile station compares that threshold value with the 

current value of the channel selection parameter, and the 

mobile station then uses the result of that comparison as 

the basis for the channel selection decision. 

In addition to the portions of the specification that 

describe the algorithm depicted in Figure 6, each description of the structure that performs the recited function 

depicts the mobile station as making the channel selection 

decision. Beginning with the Abstract, the patent describes a structure in which “[t]he decision about the 

channel used for the transfer of packet data is made 

based on a channel selection parameter and values of the 

parameters needed in the decision-making are sent to the 

mobile station.” 
12 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

The summary of the invention describes the “method 

according to the invention for the uplink transfer of 

packet data from a mobile station to the system in such a 

manner that . . . [the] channel selection parameter is sent 

from the system to the mobile station, and said selection 

is made on the basis of said value of the channel selection 

parameter.” ’143 patent, col. 4, ll. 38-51. 

In one embodiment, a threshold value of the channel 

selection parameter is stored at the mobile station. The

current value of the channel selection parameter is sent to 

the mobile station. And that current value “is compared 

to said threshold value of the channel selection parameter, and said selection is made on the basis of said comparison.” Id., col. 4, ll. 52-58. 

In another embodiment, a value corresponding to the 

channel selection parameter is calculated at the mobile 

station on the basis of the parameters of the data packet 

to be transferred. The last current value of the channel 

selection parameter that was sent to the mobile station is 

then compared to the calculated value of the channel 

selection parameter. And a channel selection is made on 

the basis of that comparison. Id., col. 4, ll. 60-67. 

Significantly, in each of the embodiments the comparison between the threshold value of the channel selection 

parameter and the current value is made at the mobile 

station, and the clear implication is that the channel 

selection decision, which is based on that comparison, is 

also made at the mobile station. Meanwhile, nowhere 

does the patent describe an embodiment in which the 

network expressly, or by clear implication, makes the 

channel selection decision.

Other portions of the specification support that interpretation. The specification describes the “cellular system 

according to the invention” as having “means for sending 

the value of said channel selection parameter from the 

system to the mobile station in order to make said selec-
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 13

tion on the basis of the value of the channel selection 

parameter.” ’143 patent, col. 5, ll. 1-15. And the specification describes the “mobile station according to the 

invention” as having “means for receiving a channel 

selection parameter value from the system, and means for 

making said selection dependent on said channel selection 

parameter value.” Id., col. 5, ll. 16-25. Once again, the 

description of the structure that performs the claimed 

function contemplates a mobile station that has the 

means to make the channel selection decision. 

Column 7 of the patent describes Figure 8, which is a 

schematic drawing of the mobile station of the invention. 

The specification explains that the control unit 803 in the 

mobile station “controls the reception blocks in such a 

manner that the parameters relating to the selection of 

the uplink channel are received from a common channel 

in accordance with the invention. Channel selection is 

advantageously performed in the control unit 803 which 

also controls the transmission blocks such that the packet 

data are transmitted on the selected channel.” ’143 

patent, col. 7, ll. 14-20. The specification then states that

the base station “sends the parameters associated with 

the selection of the packet data transfer channel to the 

mobile station in accordance with the invention and 

receives the packet data sent by the mobile station 

through a channel selected by the mobile station.” Id., col. 

7, ll. 37-42 (emphasis added). 

Although that passage from the specification would 

seem to be dispositive, Core Wireless argues that the 

description of the mobile station selecting the channel to 

be used for the uplink transmission is only a preferred 

embodiment, and that other aspects of the ’143 patent 

support Core Wireless’s position that claim 17 does not 

require that the mobile station be capable of making the 

channel selection decision. 
14 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

In particular, Core Wireless points to the language at 

column 7, lines 17-20, which states: “Channel selection is 

advantageously performed in the control unit 803 which 

also controls the transmission blocks such that the packet 

data are transmitted on the selected channel.” The use of 

the term “advantageously,” according to Core Wireless, 

shows that the patent may prefer embodiments in which 

the mobile station makes the channel selections, but that 

the patent is not limited to such embodiments.

The more natural reading of the passage in question 

is that the function of channel selection is “advantageously” performed in the control unit 803 of the mobile station, 

as opposed to in some other component of the mobile 

station that is controlled by control unit 803. The previous sentence states that “control unit 803 controls the 

reception blocks [in the mobile station] in such a manner 

that the parameters relating to selection of the uplink 

channel are received from a common channel in accordance with the invention.” ’143 patent, col. 7, ll. 14-17. 

The rest of the sentence in question refers to the control 

unit 803 as also controlling the transmission blocks so as 

to enable the transmission of the data packets on the 

selected channel. Id., col. 7, ll. 18-20. That suggests that 

the term “advantageously” alludes to the advantage of 

having one component with all the necessary information—the control unit 803, which controls both the 

reception blocks (incoming information) and transmission 

blocks (outgoing information)—make the channel selection decisions. The language of that passage thus supports the inference that the mobile station must be 

capable of channel selection, particularly in light of the 

unambiguous statement a few lines farther down in the 

same column that the “packet data [is] sent by the mobile 

station through a channel selected by the mobile station.” 

Id., col. 7, ll. 40-42.

Core Wireless next points to claim 18 of the ’143 

patent, which depends from claim 17 but adds “means for 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 15

making said channel selection on the basis of the result of 

said comparison.” According to Core Wireless, the added 

language in the dependent claim indicates that claim 17 

does not speak to the structure that makes the channel 

selection decision.

The language of the dependent claim does not support 

Core Wireless’s claim construction argument. The dependent claim does not focus on the performance of the 

channel selection process in the mobile station, but instead focuses on the fact that the channel selection process is based on the result of the comparison between the 

threshold value of a channel selection parameter and the 

current value of the channel selection parameter. The 

comparison in independent claim 17 is performed “for 

basis of said channel selection” but is not necessarily the 

actual basis of the subsequent channel selection, which 

may be based on other parameters. In contrast, the 

comparison in dependent claim 18 must in fact be the 

basis of the subsequent channel selection. Thus, under 

claim 17, the channel selection process is not strictly tied 

to the result of the comparison of those values, while 

under claim 18, it is. For that reason, nothing in claim 18 

suggests that the only limitation added in that claim—

and thus absent from claim 17—is the requirement that 

the mobile station be capable of channel selection.

Core Wireless makes much of the fact that claim 17 

has four “means” clauses, none of which expressly refers 

to the means for selecting the channel to be used for 

particular uplink transmissions. But that argument 

overlooks the full text of the “means for comparing” 

limitation. That limitation provides “means for comparing said threshold value of the channel selection parameter to a current value of the channel selection parameter 

for basis of said channel selection.” ’143 patent, col. 9, ll. 

14-16 (emphasis added). Given that the function of that 

limitation is to compare the values for the purpose of 

channel selection, the corresponding structure must be 
16 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

the structure that compares those values for the subsequent channel selection. And the only structure in the 

specification that compares values for the purpose of 

channel selection is the structure that performs both the 

comparison and the selection in the mobile station. 

In addition to the textual support in the patent, both 

the prosecution history and the extrinsic evidence confirm 

that the district court was correct in construing claim 17 

to require that the mobile station have uplink channel 

selection capabilities. In a brief filed with the Board of 

Patent Appeals and Interferences in connection with an 

appeal from an examiner’s rejection, the applicant described “the present invention” as comprising a system in 

which “a channel selection threshold value is sent from 

the system to the mobile station,” and “[a]t the mobile 

station the received threshold value is compared with a 

current value (650), and then a channel selection decision 

is made (660, page 10, lines 3-6 [of the specification]).” 

Appellants’ Br. Serial No. 09/507,804 (July 24, 2003), at 3. 

That the brief describes the channel selection as being 

made by the mobile station is confirmed by the citation to

the specification, which refers to the statement (found at 

column 6, lines 14-19 of the issued ’143 patent) that “the 

(RLC/)MAC layer [of the mobile station] either makes an 

autonomous decision on the use of the a common channel 

vs. dedicated channel on the basis of parameters received 

from the system or requests the RRC layer [of the mobile 

station] to determine the appropriate channel type.” That 

reference makes clear that during the prosecution the 

applicant’s position was that channel selection would be 

performed in the mobile station.

With regard to extrinsic evidence, the applicant was 

even more explicit on this point in the invention disclosure for the ’143 patent. He stated that the “(RLC/)MAC 

layer [in the mobile station], upon reception of a request 

to send a data packet, makes a decision between common 

and dedicated channel by using the information received 
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 17

and information of the data packet to be sent.” The 

applicant added that the network supplies information

“that MS [mobile station] uses to make decisions whether 

to send uplink packet data on common channels or on 

dedicated physical channel,” and that the decision to use 

either common channel or dedicated channel . . . will be 

done in (RLC/)MAC layer [in the mobile station].” Those 

statements unambiguously describe a system in which the 

mobile station is capable of making channel selection 

decisions, contrary to the way the evidence showed the 

accused Apple devices operate. 

Similarly, in a contemporaneous presentation made to 

the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 

the inventor described his proposal as one in which the 

mobile station “itself should be able to make decision 

whether to send data packets on [the common channel] or 

whether to request a [dedicated channel]. Otherwise 

there will be unnecessary signalling [sic] . . . before [the 

mobile station] can send a data packet on the [common] 

channel.” Although Core Wireless argues that the proposal represents only a “subset” of the invention disclosed 

in the ’143 patent, the proposal—like the patent—is clear 

that the invention requires the mobile station to make the 

selection decision in order to solve the prior art problem. 

The language of that proposal provides further support for 

the district court’s ruling in the JMOL opinion that claim 

17 of the ’143 patent requires that the mobile station 

must have the capability to make channel selection decisions.

C 

Core Wireless also argues in the alternative that 

Apple’s devices infringe even if claim 17 requires the 

mobile station to be capable of channel selection. Core 

Wireless points to the Event 4a measurement report, a 

traffic volume report that Apple’s devices generate and 

send to the network. Apple, however, introduced testimo-
18 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. APPLE INC. 

ny from its expert and an engineer that the network may

choose not to use the report in its channel selection decision or even use the report at all, and that the mobile 

station has no further input beyond merely sending the 

report. Thus, sending the report is not a channel selection decision by the mobile station because it is up to the 

network to decide what to do with the transmitted information, if anything. We agree with the district court that 

a reasonable jury could find Apple’s devices noninfringing 

based on that evidence. 

We conclude that the district court correctly denied 

Core Wireless’s motion for judgment as a matter of law 

and properly upheld the jury’s verdict of noninfringement. 

AFFIRMED